Translation of monosynaptic circuits underlying amygdala fMRI neurofeedback training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background fMRI neurofeedback targeting the amygdala is a promising therapeutical tool in psychiatry. It induces resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) changes between the amygdala and regions of the salience and default mode networks (SN and DMN, respectively). We hypothesize these rsFC changes happen on the amygdala’s underlying anatomical circuits. Methods We used the coordinates from regions of interest (ROIs) from studies showing pre-to-post-neurofeedback changes in rsFC with the left amygdala. Using a cross-species brain parcellation, we identified the homologous locations in non-human primates. We injected bidirectional tracers in the amygdala of adult macaques and used bright- and dark-field microscopy to identify cells and axon terminals in each ROI. We also performed additional injections in specific ROIs to validate the results following amygdala injections and delineate potential disynaptic pathways. Finally, we used high-resolution diffusion MRI data from four post-mortem macaque brains and one in vivo human brain to translate our findings to the neuroimaging domain. Results The amygdala had significant monosynaptic connections with all the SN and DMN ipsilateral ROIs. Amygdala connections with the DMN contralateral ROIs are disynaptic through the hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus. Diffusion MRI in both species benefitted from using the ground-truth tracer data to validate its findings, as we identified false-negative ipsilateral and false-positive contralateral connectivity results. Conclusions Amygdala neurofeedback modulates the SN and DMN through monosynaptic connections and disynaptic pathways - including hippocampal structures involved in the neurofeedback task. Neurofeedback may be a tool for rapid modulation and reinforcement of these anatomical connections, leading to clinical improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".